guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#sorrowedscript-v-t4k3nw
This is the start of #sorrowedscript-v-t4k3nw channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-29 09:22 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-303-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
NicklausNicklaus used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-29 09:27 p.m.
Case Modified
@Nicklaus has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2025-06-29 09:27 p.m.
@singhski @meowiitten
singhski pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
singhskisinghski used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:48 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @T4K3N(edited)
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:48 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @T4K3N to the case channel.
singhskisinghski used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:48 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @actxrz(edited)
singhskisinghski used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:49 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @dero(edited)
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:49 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @actxrz to the case channel.
singhskisinghski used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 07:49 a.m.
Case Modified
@singhski has added @dero to the case channel.
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-06-30 12:26 p.m.
Hi @singhski
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-06-30 12:26 p.m.
Long time no see
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-06-30 12:26 p.m.
nice to see you
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-06-30 12:26 p.m.
Hope all is well
singhski
singhski 2025-06-30 12:55 p.m.
I am recusing @Xerxy reassign
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-30 01:04 p.m.
LOL
Bluahmed0900
Bluahmed0900 2025-06-30 01:14 p.m.
Reassigned to @Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:17 p.m.
@dero @actxrz either a motion within 7 days (if denied, answer within the given times in the civil rules) or an answer
KezzeraKezzera
@dero @actxrz either a motion within 7 days (if denied, answer within the given times in the civil rules) or an answer
dero
dero 2025-06-30 01:20 p.m.
Thank you your honor
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:20 p.m.
tyty
dero
dero 2025-06-30 01:20 p.m.
Can we also get a court ordered measurement on Plaintiff attorney's nose?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:21 p.m.
Is this a jab at opposing counsel for being jewish
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:21 p.m.
What did I say about animosity
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:21 p.m.
What did my fucking chamber rules say about shit like this
KezzeraKezzera
Is this a jab at opposing counsel for being jewish
dero
dero 2025-06-30 01:22 p.m.
No, Your Honor. In fact, I am upset that you would assume that I would ever make such an offensive comment.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:22 p.m.
You can ask that in chatroom not here
dero
dero 2025-06-30 01:22 p.m.
Yes, Your Honor
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:23 p.m.
Banter and the odd stuff can happen occasionally but this shit has got to stop in these case channels
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:24 p.m.
It's bloating the record and frankly it's not fun after a while let's just keep it polite
dero
dero 2025-06-30 01:28 p.m.
Of course. Me and Sadoimpacto both agree to be better
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:28 p.m.
Good
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:28 p.m.
Let's keep it that way
KezzeraKezzera
@dero @actxrz either a motion within 7 days (if denied, answer within the given times in the civil rules) or an answer
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-30 01:35 p.m.
understood your honor
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-30 01:36 p.m.
will submit a motion within 7 days
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:36 p.m.
thanks
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-06-30 01:47 p.m.
Hi @Kezzera
Long time no see
nice to see you
Hope all is well
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-30 01:48 p.m.
hello Tekken 2
KezzeraKezzera
Is this a jab at opposing counsel for being jewish
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-30 02:35 p.m.
As I’m Jewish in real life this patently offensive
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-01 04:45 p.m.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-01 06:39 p.m.
everything is to be filed on the website - we will not do this on your behalf
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-01 06:39 p.m.
make sure this is done
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-01 07:47 p.m.
@actxrz
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-01 07:52 p.m.
i do file them on website
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-01 07:52 p.m.
i send in case chats and put it on website
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-01 07:53 p.m.
i personally don’t check the website to see if smth has been uploaded and i doubt ppl check either so i js send wtv in case chat
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-02 05:30 p.m.
please expect a motion to dismiss to be filed tonight or tomorrow.
✅1
actxrzactxrz
i personally don’t check the website to see if smth has been uploaded and i doubt ppl check either so i js send wtv in case chat
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-02 05:34 p.m.
that fine if you sent it we'll look at it and process it
meowiittenmeowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-02 08:45 p.m.
@Kezzera Pin please
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-02 09:05 p.m.
I will also be moving for partial summary judgment
Kezzera pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
meowiittenmeowiitten
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-02 09:32 p.m.
please in writing thanks :)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-02 10:03 p.m.
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST
@Kezzera @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-02 10:04 p.m.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
@Kezzera @actxrz
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE @Kezzera @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-02 10:10 p.m.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF MAYFLOWER COUNTY OF CLARK SORROWEDSCRIPT, Plaintiff, - against - T4K3NW, in his individual and quasi-official capacity as Director of the Mayflower Bureau of Investigati...
✅1
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 03:47 p.m.
@Kezzera nvm dont expect a mtd
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 03:48 p.m.
@meowiitten ^
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 03:48 p.m.
Fricking deverus............
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-03 04:02 p.m.
oh okay
actxrzactxrz
@Kezzera nvm dont expect a mtd
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-03 04:02 p.m.
why
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-03 04:02 p.m.
Wa happen
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:02 p.m.
acc wait
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:18 p.m.
pls still expect it
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:18 p.m.
i Will Not be Bullied by Sado impacto .
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:18 p.m.
Take a Stand to Bullying 2025
KezzeraKezzera
Wa happen
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:24 p.m.
If you look at Exhibit D and the motion that I submitted, you'll understand
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:24 p.m.
The DOJ already admitted there was no probable cause in their vacatur proceeding
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:25 p.m.
And the DOJ is party in privy here and there
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:25 p.m.
So they cannot raise that as a defense here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:25 p.m.
It's very simple
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:29 p.m.
There is also just plain judicial estoppel, aka, the “doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions”
meowiittenmeowiitten
There is also just plain judicial estoppel, aka, the “doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions”
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:38 p.m.
"[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him." Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680, 689 (1895). This rule, known as judicial estoppel, "generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211, 227, n. 8 (2000); see 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 134.30, p. 134-62 (3d ed. 2000) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding"); 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4477, p. 782 (1981) (hereinafter Wright) ("absent any good explanation, a party should not be allowed to gain an advantage by litigation on one theory, and then seek an inconsistent advantage by pursuing an incompatible theory").

New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001).
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:39 p.m.
the justice department'
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:39 p.m.
bro
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:39 p.m.
like
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:39 p.m.
omg
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:39 p.m.
i need a new keyboard
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:41 p.m.
@actxrz The justice department fuhhed you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:41 p.m.
Put plainy, sir.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:41 p.m.
:😔:
meowiittenmeowiitten
There is also just plain judicial estoppel, aka, the “doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions”
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:41 p.m.
the doctrine only applies if the party against whom it's sued was actually a party (or in privity) to the prior case and had a fair chance to argue the issue
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
here, the vacatur was by the doj, not by the defendant personally.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
he didnt litigate the issue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
The DOJ is the party in privity
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
just because he works for the doj
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
and is the director of mbi
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
doesnt mean he personally admitted anything
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:42 p.m.
the DOJs position does not automatically bind him in his individual capacity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:44 p.m.
If you admit that the DOJ's decision doesn't bind him then you essentially deny that he's your agent
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:45 p.m.
acknowledging that the doj's decision does not bind taken personally does not deny that he is an agent of the doj
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:46 p.m.
it simply recognizes the legal disctintion between official and individual capacity
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:47 p.m.
wheil taken acts as an agent in his official or quasi-official capacity (where department admissions may bind him) the individual capacity claims require that he personally be given the opportunity to defend himself and not be automatically bound by the department's positions
actxrzactxrz
acknowledging that the doj's decision does not bind taken personally does not deny that he is an agent of the doj
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:47 p.m.
You can't have it both ways. If the DOJ's decision doesn't bind his OFFICIAL duties as an agent of the DOJ, then you would essentially admit he was acting purely in his own capacity at the time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:47 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:47 p.m.
See these
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:49 p.m.
And the DOJ was a sufficient and voluntary privy to that record-clearing case, and is now privy in this case(edited)
meowiittenmeowiitten
You can't have it both ways. If the DOJ's decision doesn't bind his OFFICIAL duties as an agent of the DOJ, then you would essentially admit he was acting purely in his own capacit...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:51 p.m.
acknowledging that taken is a DOJ agent does not mean every DOJ action binds him personally
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:52 p.m.
under M.S.C. 1 §§ 3209.4–.6, certification governs whether the State substitutes in for indemnification
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:52 p.m.
not whether individual liability is foreclosed
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:52 p.m.
the doj's vacatur motion was a non-adversarial, discretionary act that did not involve taken as a litigant, nor did it adjudicate any civil rights claims
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:53 p.m.
even if the doj s in privity for official-capacity purposes, taken retains the right to defend himself in his individual capacity..
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:53 p.m.
It doesn't need to be adversarial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:53 p.m.
It can be any kind of proceeding
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:53 p.m.
there is no "both ways" issue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:54 p.m.
Did the DOJ not represent T4K3Nw in In Re SorrowedScript(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:54 p.m.
They objectively found that their officer had no probable cause
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:55 p.m.
Party in privy means you had a direct legal relationship
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:55 p.m.
The DOJ has a direct legal relationship with T4K3Nw legally and administratively
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:55 p.m.
He is also the DOJ himself in some way. He's the Director of the MBI
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:56 p.m.
You can't unopen the can of worms
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:56 p.m.
You can go complain to Deverus but it won't change this
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:56 p.m.
Once again: "[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him." Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 680, 689 (1895). This rule, known as judicial estoppel, "generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211, 227, n. 8 (2000)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 04:56 p.m.
Even if it is to your detriment
meowiittenmeowiitten
It doesn't need to be adversarial
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 04:59 p.m.
even in non-adversarial proceedings, issue preclusion and judicial estoppel only apply where the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to participate.

“It is a principle of general application in Anglo–American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 884 (2008) (quoting Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940)).
meowiittenmeowiitten
Did the DOJ not represent T4K3Nw in In Re SorrowedScript(edited)
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:01 p.m.
ok while the doj represented the agency and filed the vacatur motion, taken was not personally a party to that proceeding nor represent individually. representation of an agency does not equate to person representation of an official in every context. the individual capacity claims against taken requrie seperate defense and cannot be automatically bound by the DOJ's actions
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:01 p.m.
the DOJ's vacatur reflected its prosecutorial discreate in a non-adversarial setting and did not constitute a judicial finding against taken personally
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:02 p.m.
such discretionary actions do not have binding preclusive effect on civil rights claims where the defendant had no opportunity to litigate the facts or merits personally
actxrzactxrz
even in non-adversarial proceedings, issue preclusion and judicial estoppel only apply where the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to participate. “It is a princi...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 05:02 p.m.
Read it in context because that isn't an absolute statement
meowiittenmeowiitten
Party in privy means you had a direct legal relationship
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:04 p.m.
a direct legal or administrative relationship is necessary but not sufficient for issue preclusion or judicial estoppel. the party to be bound must also have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue personally.... taken wasnt a party to the vacatur proceeding and didnt have that opportunity so privity alone doesnt apply here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 05:04 p.m.
"a direct legal or administrative relationship is necessary"

You can stop after that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-03 05:04 p.m.
The rest of that isn't needed
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:04 p.m.
i gtg
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:05 p.m.
i have work
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-03 05:05 p.m.
but if u have anything else pls say it and ill respond when i get back home
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE @Kezzera @actxrz
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-04 03:29 p.m.
we will respond
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-04 07:50 p.m.
ill expect it
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-04 07:50 p.m.
if i need to respond to anything, i'll drop it here
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-04 07:50 p.m.
any requests for orders are reserved until the submissions are made in full
KezzeraKezzera
ill expect it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-04 11:55 p.m.
Are you giving him over 48 because the 48 hour window passed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 03:29 p.m.
@Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 03:29 p.m.
ohs orry i didnt see
meowiittenmeowiitten
Are you giving him over 48 because the 48 hour window passed
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 03:29 p.m.
it has?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 03:30 p.m.
hold on
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 03:30 p.m.
Yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 03:30 p.m.
July 2, 2025, to July 5, 2025
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 03:30 p.m.
it says july 3 for me
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 03:31 p.m.
oh timezones
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 10:05 p.m.
okay, well i never ordered any extended time for defendant
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 10:06 p.m.
but to account for all of the timezones possible, it's due by 5am my time
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-05 10:06 p.m.
if no response is in by then i will proceed with this(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 12:21 a.m.
@Kezzera Time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 12:21 a.m.
Please proceed
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 04:23 a.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 04:23 a.m.
@Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-06 04:26 a.m.
i render decisions soon :D
KezzeraKezzera
i render decisions soon :D
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 01:12 p.m.
Alright
KezzeraKezzera
okay, well i never ordered any extended time for defendant
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-06 05:28 p.m.
oh
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-06 05:28 p.m.
what
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-06 05:28 p.m.
i never even saw this msg :/
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-06 06:14 p.m.
GANG!!!!
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-07-06 06:14 p.m.
ITS IN THE RULES!!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 06:33 p.m.
@Kezzera Hurry uppppp uhhhh:😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 11:47 p.m.
@Kezzera Albertttttttuhhhhh :😭:
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 04:42 a.m.
DEFENDANT’S VERBAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO INVOKE RULE 38(d)

HERE COMES T4K3Nw ("Defendant"), by and through counsel, respectfully moves this Court for a two (2) day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of this motion, Defendant states:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is procedurally premature. Defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading, and the case is not yet at issue.
2. No discovery phase has commenced. The parties have not held a pretrial conference, nor has any discovery schedule been entered by the Court.
3. Although Plaintiff has unilaterally served discovery requests, Defendant has not yet responded, as the matter remains in the pleadings stage.
4. Under Rule 38(d), the Court may defer or deny a motion for summary judgment when a nonmovant cannot present facts essential to justify opposition. Here, the absence of discovery and lack of joinder of issues makes summary judgment not only premature but prejudicial.
5. Defendant intends to file a declaration under Rule 38(d) within the requested extension period, supporting a motion to defer or deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant a two (2) day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dated: 07/07/2025

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ actxrz (#1009202)
State Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General
Mayflower Department of Justice

Counsel for Defendant
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 04:44 a.m.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 04:44 a.m.
Federal courts routinely hold that a summary judgment motion is impermissibly early when the case is not yet "at issue" (i.e., no answer has been filed).
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 04:48 a.m.
For example, Peoples Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 58 F. Supp. 25 (N.D. Cal. 1944) expressly struck a SJ motion as premature because the defendant had not answered.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:00 a.m.
It is well established that a party may not be forced to oppose SJ before having an opportunity for discovery necessary to develop its case. The Federal Judicial Center notes that a judge "can quickly form an impression whether the [SJ] motion should be denied as clearly without merit or deferred as premature (when, for example, critical discovery is incomplete)." While Rule 38 allows for a summary judgment motion after 10 days from commencement, it tracks the federal standard under Rule 56(b), although such motions can technically be filed early, courts routinely reject them when discovery is incomplete. As the Aliff court held, “[m]otions for summary judgment are frequently considered premature and denied when discovery has not been completed.” Aliff v. Vervent Inc., 2022 WL 3588322, at * 4. Likewise, in Sowa v. Ring & Pinion, the court found that “[g]enerally, summary judgment is inappropriate before the parties have had an opportunity for discovery.” 2021 WL 6334930, at *2.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:01 a.m.
And when that happens, the nonmoving party (as we are here) may respond under Rule 56(d) by showing that it cannot yet present the facts essential to opposition. Once that declaration is made, the Court has discretion to defer, deny, or issue any appropriate order. See also Burlington Northern, 323 F.3d at 773, where the Ninth Circuit instructed that when summary judgment is filed “early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant any [Rule 56(d)] motion fairly freely.”
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:03 a.m.
We are not saying summary judgement is never allowed early. We are saying that under Rule 38(d), and consistent with the federal standard, this Court has the authority to defer ruling until the record is developed and the parties on equal footing.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:03 a.m.
Again, we respectfully request just two additional days to submit that declaration and to preserve our right to respond meaningfully.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:35 a.m.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
cc; @Kezzera@meowiitten
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT’S VERBAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO INVOKE RULE 38(d) HERE COMES T4K3Nw ("Defenda...
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 05:36 a.m.
cc; @Kezzera@meowiitten
actxrzactxrz
It is well established that a party may not be forced to oppose SJ before having an opportunity for discovery necessary to develop its case. The Federal Judicial Center notes that ...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:01 p.m.
I already made discovery
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:02 p.m.
Just be quiet kindly and wait for the ruling boy(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:02 p.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:02 p.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:02 p.m.
@Kezzera
actxrzactxrz
We are not saying summary judgement is never allowed early. We are saying that under Rule 38(d), and consistent with the federal standard, this Court has the authority to defer rul...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:03 p.m.
@actxrz Hello? Did you receive this?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:03 p.m.
@Kezzera We need to wait for discovery.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:03 p.m.
The Plaintiff never made discovery.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:04 p.m.
@actxrz Was this received? — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:04 p.m.
— 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM — 7/2/25, 10:03 PM
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:04 p.m.
Calling for assistance @turntable
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 03:08 p.m.
“Summary judgment is improper if the non‑movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery. (citing White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231–32 (6th Cir. 1994); Plott v. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986))).

“If the non-movant makes a proper and timely showing of a need for discovery, the district court’s entry of summary judgment without permitting him to conduct any discovery at all will constitute an abuse of discretion.” (Vance, 90 F.3d at 1149, quoting White’s Landing, 29 F.3d at 231–32).

“Before a summary judgment motion is decided, the nonmovant must file an affidavit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) [now 56(d)] which details the discovery needed, or file a motion for additional discovery. If he does neither, this court will not normally address whether there was adequate time for discovery.” (Plott, 71 F.3d at 1196, cited in Vance, 90 F.3d at 1149).
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 03:08 p.m.
in full alignment with rule 38(d), we are doing exactly what Vance and Plott require
actxrzactxrz
“Summary judgment is improper if the non‑movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery. (citing White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231–32 (...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:15 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:16 p.m.
@Kezzera
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 03:24 p.m.
actxrzactxrz
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:29 p.m.
Don’t mind me just cashing in my check from last week aha
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:29 p.m.
@actxrz Will you go band for band with me buddy
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 03:33 p.m.
no.. i’m acc so poor rn
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-07 03:33 p.m.
i js bought a bunch of clothes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:37 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-08 06:46 p.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-09 01:08 p.m.
@Kezzera
T4K3N
T4K3N 2025-07-10 11:06 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-13 03:19 a.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-15 02:11 a.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-16 12:32 a.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-16 06:42 p.m.
@Kezzera Are you busy irl? What is taking so long? I don't mind if you are but it's been 8 days and no response
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-17 02:01 p.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-19 08:29 p.m.
@Kezzera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 03:48 p.m.
@Kezzera
krm
krm 2025-07-21 12:34 p.m.
@meowiitten hello i am presiding
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 12:34 p.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Chancery, Lord Shah.
krmkrm used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 12:34 p.m.
Case Modified
@krm has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
krmkrm used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-21 12:34 p.m.
Case Modified
@krm has added @actxrz to the case channel.
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE @Kezzera @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-21 12:36 p.m.
@krm
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-21 12:36 p.m.
Response was already submitted
krm
krm 2025-07-21 12:36 p.m.
ok give me time to catch up on ym cases
krm
krm 2025-07-21 12:37 p.m.
but will be issued from tomorrow
meowiittenmeowiitten
"[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, as...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-21 12:38 p.m.
Also there is this case law on judicial estoppel which might be more appropriate here
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT cc; @Kezzera@meowiitten
krm
krm 2025-07-22 07:23 a.m.
dont pmo and file this on the wbesite
krm
krm 2025-07-22 07:23 a.m.
i wouldntve looked at it otherwise
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-22 02:11 p.m.
am i added to the case…
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-22 02:12 p.m.
bc i’m not added to any case
krm
krm 2025-07-22 02:20 p.m.
the ministeria should have been done by the previous judg!
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:25 p.m.
so im just reading this now
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:32 p.m.
@actxrz you are appearing for defendant in individual capacity correct
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:32 p.m.
just to double check
meowiittenmeowiitten
"[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, as...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:42 p.m.
.
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE @Kezzera @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:42 p.m.
.
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
The vacatur was brought by DOJ in an official capacity not by the Defendant in his individual capacity. There is no record that the Defendant adopted such position or derived personal benefit from the vacatur, and had no opportunity to litigate in that proceeding @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
Ok and the DOJ is now in their capacity trying to controvert what the DOJ already did
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
If he had a personal lawyer maybe I'd see it not being applicable
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
Mr. actxrz is defending in an individual capacity
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
I believe
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:44 p.m.
Judicial estoppel has a low bar
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
No he's here because he's an agent of the DOJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
Otherwise he wouldn't
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
Judicial estoppel does not foreclose a Defendant's defense in individual capacity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
Yeah it does
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
Maybe not in this case but yes it does
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
In genera
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:45 p.m.
l
meowiittenmeowiitten
No he's here because he's an agent of the DOJ
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
Ok lets first clear this up @actxrz
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
Well I don't care either way if you don't agree you can just deny the motion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
I don't need an opinion
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
Mama is not about to be appealed
krm
krm 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
She requires all the details
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
I can't even appeal it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
Or hardly
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-23 04:46 p.m.
Since it's partial
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-23 05:03 p.m.
yes in both capacity
actxrz
actxrz 2025-07-23 05:03 p.m.
all capacity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-29 06:44 p.m.
@krm
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-31 02:32 p.m.
@krm
krm
krm 2025-08-04 04:56 p.m.
motion denied @meowiitten
krm
krm 2025-08-09 07:06 p.m.
any further mts @meowiitten
krmkrm
any further mts @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 07:07 p.m.
Summary judgment I guess
meowiittenmeowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 07:07 p.m.
.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-09 07:07 p.m.
Enjoy!
krm
krm 2025-08-09 07:10 p.m.
give me a day or so
meowiittenmeowiitten
Summary judgment I guess
krm
krm 2025-08-10 05:48 p.m.
did you want partial or full
krmkrm
did you want partial or full
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:49 p.m.
Is there even an answer in this case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:50 p.m.
Oh yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:50 p.m.
There is
actxrzactxrz
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT cc; @Kezzera@meowiitten
krm
krm 2025-08-10 05:50 p.m.
yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:50 p.m.
Honestly this case has gone so long I'd be curious if the plaintiff still wants to pursue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:51 p.m.
So let me ask him
krm
krm 2025-08-10 05:51 p.m.
okay
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:52 p.m.
I mean the ticket that was in my server is closed and I didn't close it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:53 p.m.
Can't find him in the clark discord either
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:53 p.m.
@sorrowedscript
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:53 p.m.
@Desired
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:53 p.m.
Oh there we go
krm
krm 2025-08-10 05:54 p.m.
can you let me know by tomorrow preferably and ill rule on sj by then
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:54 p.m.
Ok
krmkrm
did you want partial or full
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-10 05:54 p.m.
Full
krm
krm 2025-08-10 06:00 p.m.
ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-11 05:01 p.m.
@krm No answer btw
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-11 05:01 p.m.
from plaintiff
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-19 12:47 a.m.
@krm Honestly just dismiss this case for want of prosecution
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-19 12:47 a.m.
No answer at all
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-19 12:49 p.m.
@krm Day 1 of asking to dismiss ….
jask 3
jask 3 2025-08-19 12:55 p.m.
the way you tagged the wrong account
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-19 12:58 p.m.
@jask 3
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-19 12:58 p.m.
Fucking do it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-08-22 11:49 p.m.
As I have been commissioned into active service, I ask leave of the court to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant @krm
krmkrm used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:52 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:52 a.m.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:52 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XI.
Exported 280 messages